Kimmel

Jimmy Kimmel: Totally F**king Wrong on Climate Change

By James Delingpole, Breitbart.com

Jimmy Kimmel is great. Probably the most relaxed, amiable, and funny of all the U.S. talk show hosts, not counting James Corden. But after last night he just lost a fan.

No, I’m sure he doesn’t care about this either. As he made perfectly clear in a segment of his show called “Scientists aren’t ****ing with you”, anyone who disagrees with “the science” on climate change is a complete wing nut – and therefore any criticism he gets from “deniers” like me will be considered a badge of honour.

Even so, if you’re going to go on TV and use your privileged late night ABC TV slot to tell millions of people about the “science” of climate change, don’t you at least owe it to your fans – especially the kids, like my daughter, who really look up to you – to make sure of your facts first?

Kimmel: “The idea that she [Sarah Palin] knows more than 97 per cent of scientists – it’s dangerous and offensive.”

No, Jimmy. What’s dangerous and offensive is for a prominent, influential celebrity to regurgitate proven lies as if they were facts. That 97 per cent claim has been debunked on numerous occasions. It was based on a skewed poll which involved a great deal of cherry-picking – and tells us nothing meaningful about either the current state of climate science or where scientists now stand on it. Even if it were remotely accurate (which it’s not by the way: it was a stunt cooked up for political reasons by activists), science is not a popularity contest. As Einstein supposedly said in response to a book commissioned by Hitler called ‘100 Authors Against Einstein’: “Why one hundred? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.”

Read the rest of the article here.

  • Yougottabe Dryhumpinme

    That’s a shame that Jimmy Kimmel has proven himself to be one of the sycophantic libtard morons who actually believe the hype about climate change despite the FACT that it has proven itself to not exist on a geologic timescale. Even 200 years is an insignificant timeframe in which to properly judge the weather patterns upon Earth.

    • Nicholas Leede

      Okay first off do you hear yourself?? Second off global warming is 100% valid to anyone even if you only have just one teaspoon of intelligence. Have you studied the fundamentals of chemistry and physics and have you ever thought to maybe look at what happened to almost HALF of the planets in our solar system? They are present proof that greenhouse gases are 100% real and that alone essentially proves global warming. Thirdly WAKE UP you ignorant fool! Stop believing the lies being pedaled too you by the US government and honestly the soon to die republican party. Also please use your brain to help you realize that our enormous surplus of carbon and greenhouse gasses being dumped into the atmosphere have only been around for 150 years-ish so why do you think any data would be valid before the industrial revolution? Natural climate change is very real and you can see it in fossils and sedimentary rock that allows you to look back in time but global warming is much much different and is in fact 100% real. Get your facts right you ignorant piece. P.S. feel free to prove me wrong. I would love to see you try. :] REKT

      • Clive Jackson

        Breaking: Top Climate Change Scientist Admits He Was Wrong

        http://www.infowars.com/breaking-top-climate-change-scientist-admits-he-was-wrong/

        Alex Jones and Lord Christopher Monckton discuss the latest news coming out of the world of “Man Mad Climate Change”.

        Case closed. Turn the channel. I think you have CNNitis disease!

        Look up what this organization does to the climate!

      • Yougottabe Dryhumpinme

        Obviously, you don’t know sh&t about geology. That’s why you are coming off as a pompous ass&hole who wouldn’t know your own @-s-s from a hole in the ground. Geology studies the Earth from even before the beginning of human life until now. Just because you’re about as sharp as a bowling ball, that certainly doesn’t gain you any credibility despite your ridiculous diatribes about things to which you know ABSOLUTELY nothing about whatsoever. You’re so dumb that you thought that the best way for you to raise your IQ would be to climb a ladder, and I feel sorry for you because of it.

        • Dylan

          Yougottabe, I feel very sorry for you. Poor kid. You got rekt.

        • Dylan

          You even had to come back 3 days later to write this idiotic paragraph, oh boy. May I advise you to step back and rethink your life.

        • Real Vegas

          You should shut up. You don’t even know the name of the university you attended, let alone anything about the scientific method.

          • Yougottabe Dryhumpinme

            You can go ahead eat a bag of sh&t. I know the scientific method inside and out you perennial mental midget.

          • Real Vegas

            Guess you learned about it at ‘John (sic) Hopkins. Is that where you learned ad hominem attacks as well?

          • Real Vegas

            I throw the gauntlet in your face. When and under what bridge, you little Troll?

          • chipfortson

            Science quit using the scientific method when they decided “The Theory of Evolution” was a fact, without any evidence.

      • Yougottabe Dryhumpinme

        Don’t blame me that a fly got into your dad’s semen when he was raping your mother upon your conception.

      • Brad Deakin
      • chipfortson

        I wasnt aware we’d been to any other planets… The moon shot is questionable, so your argument based on other planets makes you sound like your a, “Trekie”. My IQ is 149, so a tad more than a teaspoon and I’m 46 now, so smart enough and old enough to have been through a few bogus science claims. When I was a kid they said if we didn’t stop using fossil fuels NOW, we’d be in another ice age before 1980. Didn’t happen. Then they said aerosol cans and freon were putting holes in the ozone layer, NOT. Turns out there have always been 2 holes in the ozone layer over both poles, but Slick Willy still got them both outlawed so DuPont could make a fortune selling R12, since the patents had run out on freon. Next came second hand smoke, the FDA was sure they had a slam dunk, but then it came out they cherry picked the data. Instead of studying data to see what it revealed, they started with an assumption(ie, that second hand smoke is more deadly). When the data didn’t show this to be true, they just picked what they wanted and announced it was proven so and that science had backed them up.

        Science needs money, so science can be bought, its just a matter of who needs what and how much they have to spend. Here’s a clue, its tends to be really cold in the winters and tends to be very hot in the summers, but not every year and depending on where you are globally. Lastly, Volcanos produce more CO2 than all human out put combined annually, so go stick a catalytic converter on one of those and then leave us alone.

  • TraceSkipper

    Hard to say if global warming is really happening. But I do have questions.
    1. If the global mean temperature has be recorded since the 1800s how come its been rising the first half of the 20th century when man-made co2 was low.
    2. After War World 2 until the 1970s how come the planet was cooling which seems really odd if you take in account the post war industrial revolution.
    3. After the 1970s when global temps started to rise why not exponentially? A lot more co2 but the mean temperatures dont show it.

    I guess in the end no one knows for sure, but whats really bad through all this, is the green energy policies that are destructive in themselves.

    • Dylan

      It is not hard to say it is happening, unless you are getting your information from sites like these.

      • TraceSkipper

        You mean a site that promotes open discussion about climate change and actually using empirical data to deterimine if something is really happening or an alarmist group like IPCC that doesnt and instead creates fear and paranoia (since they are easier to do that facts.)

        Your comment is exactly want this is site talking about it. Close minded, non-factual emotional crap.

        • Dylan

          Your arguement is that you don’t believe in what science has proven, but I guess that’s not my problem. If I can’t convince you the sky isn’t blue with facts then I don’t know what youll believe.
          Also, most realiable websites won’t have “f**king” in the tiltle of one of their articles.

          • TraceSkipper

            Didnt have an argument just three questions and still no answers. But thxs for coming out.

          • Dylan

            1. CO2 does not just disappear after it is produced. It continues to accumulate even if the rate decreases. So to answer your question, the concentration of CO2 wasn’t low, just the rate of production.

            2. Natural weather variation. You: “Oh, it’s snowing outside, global warming is fake!”

            3. There is no reason they need to be rising exponentially. CO2 increase in the atmosphere results in global temperature increase.

            And to respond to your comment that green energy policies are destructive…I think that you fail to see the larger issue at hand, further than destroying our environment. Fossil fuels are FINITE and there is a need to bring developing countries out of poverty which will be accomplished through green energy policies. These policies are not just about climate change, they are also about food and water security, poverty, and global health.

  • Knut Rellsmo

    Guarantee: The Earth will be colder, and sparker , Ice and glaciers will increase and decrease, The see level will vary. …The CO2 level will change…
    WHY ? Because this is the ongoing climate change thru million of years..

    • Dylan

      Youre so smart!

    • The Irishman

      Alright… cut it out w the “common-sense” crap~ nobody’s interested in truth. They need D-R-A-M-A to distract ’em from the failures o’ their own lives. **SMH** Who the h*ll do you think you are, denyin’ ’em that? **Laughin’ Hysterically**

  • The Irishman

    They’ve re-labeled it yet again: it’s now “Anthropogenic Climate
    DISRUPTION.” So now we’re technically right where we’re supposed to be
    climate-wise, but every hurricane… tornado… and on occasion,
    earthquake (yes, I’ve seen ’em blamed on “climate change/disruption (the
    Earth’s crust bein’ warmed at a rate faster than would normally occur))
    is the fault of human activity & CO2 o.O H*ll… I’ve heard ’em
    blame a blip in crime-rate on climate disruption now. Fact is, they need
    to create climate-hysteria & get their agenda passed, as the
    natural cooling cycle’s about to start~ they want desperately to take
    credit for it ~ keep their investments solvent & profitable (cash,
    political-capital and power, ALL) for another couple generations. Any o’
    ya’s old enough to remember the big “global cooling” scare o’ the
    1970s? What’d they come up with after that…? Oh yeah… the hole in
    the ozone layer that was s’posed to fry us all alive (There WAS a great
    deal of ground-level ozone pollution (what they claimed blew a hole through the ozone layer), but…) Then along came the next
    bright-idea… GloBull Warming. And the people ate it up~ hook, line
    & sinker… the politicians had refined their power-grabbin’ art and
    learned how best to control the scientists with $$$– “Tell the truth,
    lose your funding.” Can’t tell ya how much o’ THAT I’ve heard straight
    from the horse’s mouth(s) (defunded climatologists), so they take the
    safe road–> “What happens if we elevate CO2 levels to THIS? Ahhh…
    the polar ice sheets melt, the oceans effervesce & the fish become
    the new rulers of Manhattan!” Unfortunately, what no one will say out
    loud (thank you, grant-money manipulation) is that the greenhouse effect
    is based more on atmospheric DENSITY, NOT on O2/CO2 proportions~
    there’s been times (according to ice-core samples) the CO2 levels have
    been much higher than they are today, but the global mean temperatures
    much COOLER… further, that CO2 levels tend to follow temperature, NOT
    the other way around. Unfortunately, facts don’t serve agenda. D*MN
    those pesky ice-core samples!!!

    While I appreciate the passion
    & zeal o’ characters arguin’ the point in forums like these, all it
    serves is the investor’s (politician’s) desires: keep the proletariat
    distracted & arguin’ among themselves while the agenda’s solidified
    & made law. Wonder where all this would be right now were the
    politicians’ insider-trading outlawed saaaaay… 15 years ago? -.-
    #JustSayin

  • Ron Lentjes

    You guys. You’ve got it all wrong. It’s not about #truth#. It’s not about @science@. And trust me, it IS all $settled$. It’s all about the bottom line – the $mula$ is flooding in… Ron Lentjes.

  • Ramsay
  • iquack

    Anthropogenic climate change is baloney. Count on leftist Democrats to use the Earth’s natural climate cycles as an excuse to hike takes and generate onerous regulations to control us. As for that 97% claim, it’s a sure thing that at least 97% of grant-grubbing “scientists” feeding from the taxpayer trough are happy to continue their remunerative scam.

    • Laurel Barney

      I absolutely agree with you. Its all about Money and big business. Wiki leaks intercepted an email between 2 scientists. One told the other one that he faked the temperatures on a graph he was working on.

      • John

        You’re half right. It is all about money and big business. The big business being oil, gas and coal companies who spends millions of dollars each year decieving people into believing shit pumped out by this site. Who has profited in the last three decades from climate change denial?

        Exxon (now ExxonMobil) conducted unprecedented research fourty years ago which concluded C02 emissions would contribute to climate change, and then buried the findings and have tirelessly spent millions of dollars to illegitimise global warming.

        Have a read of this 😉
        http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf

        • Disqusted1776

          John, remember when climate scientists were caught repeatedly fudging data in “climate gate”? Remember when your climate guru’s said the earth was going to freeze decades ago? Remember the medieval warm period when it was warmer than it is today? Remember all the predictions made by the losers you worship about how Miami would be under water now that didn’t come true? Remember when it was “global warming” and not climate change? You are a pseudo-intellectual shill who thinks because one company who does not want to be controlled and taxed to oblivion is this big evil behind climate change “denial”. No, it is people with brains who don’t listen to big banking shills at the UN who are your enemy. People with common sense. I’m guessing you didn’t even read what you linked to because it is complete garbage that only a moron would pat themselves on the back after reading. Do you seriously think the oil company is more powerful than the entities like the Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations, and the Trilateral Commission? Completely asinine.

  • George

    Jimmy…..have you heard of The Dirty 30’s….it’s exactly the same thing…..but without the political stupidity and hype . Lots of other references to other changes in climate, most of them short lasting ( 20 yrs. or so ), some longer ( 60 yrs or so ) . These weather patterns cannot be stopped or changed by man or any technology of the day…… in the world . Only the gods and God can do this. I’ld like to see what machine the Environmental scientists , have in their secret laboratories , that their not telling us about…..that can control the Sun or for that matter the oceans themselves . After all it covers 75% of our planet so far. Have some political venue TOLD you, to say this ? If so ……then your in big trouble , mate . Did’nt you know that most politicians are full of “hot air” and are the chief cause of heat waves across the country, along with the now changing numbers of the 97% of “scientists” . They had nacromancers ( scientists) , in the past , that wanted to turn lead/metals into gold . The GW/CC “scientists” , though, have been able to turn s**t , into gold ,…….go figure .

  • GeologyIsNotARealScience

    Climate Change is not a real science!

  • John

    James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming. This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.

    * ONE of the 9,136 authors.

    *Of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.

    Why are there no facts in your article? You assert the 97% census is wrong but provide no other data, even if the figure is 90% that is more than enough to act decisively on climate change.

    I see in other articles you cling to heavily contested findings such as Artic Ice increasing as an assurance of your view, yet staunchly refuse to believe decades of hard science.

    As for ‘grant-grubbing scientists’ who iquack calls “scientists”(?), they have far more to gain from publishing climate denial papers than the accepted fact.

    *en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory#Funding

    This is particularly telling:
    An analysis conducted by The Carbon Brief in 2011 found that 9 out of 10 of the most prolific authors who cast doubt on climate change or speak against it had ties to ExxonMobil. Greenpeace have said that Koch industries invested more than US$50 million in the past 50 years on spreading doubts about climate change. ExxonMobil announced in 2008 that it would cut its funding to many of the groups that “divert attention” from the need to find new sources of clean energy, although in 2008 still funded over “two dozen other organisations who question the science of global warming or attack policies to solve the crisis.” A survey carried out by the UK Royal Society found that in 2005 ExxonMobil distributed US$2.9 million to 39 groups that “misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence”.

    • LouisD

      Try refuting the physics and mathematical calculations of my post and get bact to me and the now 39,000 scientists that say that citing CO2 as a cause it is a hoax.

      Try refuting the scince with, well, actual science and not your phony 97% number.

  • SuzanneSmith

    NOAA said July/16 marks the 15th month in a row in which global heat records have been broken. That continues the longest streak of record-breaking temperatures since reporting began. This site is immoral at best, criminal at worst. ,

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/july-2016-hottest-month_us_57b219b4e4b007c36e4fb557?section=&

  • Craig Tucker
  • Dean Watson

    He is on the wrong side of history.

  • LouisD

    The problem is that the “97% of scientists” claim is an enormous lie. Regardless of the fact that climate does in fact change and is always in some state of change; the idea that anthroprogenic CO2 is causing climate heating is ludicrous based on IPCC data and the laws of Chemistry and Physics.

    Any real scientist with a solid understanding of the adaptive radiative means of heat energy transmission and storage within gasses and the earth’s various surfaces knows the CO2 claim is an enormous hoax. If they do not, then they have no business claiming a knowledge of science. Here are just the hard facts, and you all do the math.

    1) The “mean climate measure” is about 289°K.

    2) The “mean climate temperature” is approximately 8°K higher than it would be if there was absolutely NO greenhouse gases (GHG).

    3) This means that from all internal and solar radiative forces, 97.22% of climate is determined by laws of physics (cooling of the earth’s core and celestial mechanics of the earth’s rotation, distance from the sun, etc.). See Milankovich Cicles which account for most major swings in climate over tens of thousands of years.

    4. Thus, about 2.78% of climate is determined by the influence of mainly solar radiation that forces heat gain energy within the GHG portion of the atmosphere.

    5. Of all atmospheric GHG’s, 97% is H2O. (water). H2O accounts for roughly 40,000 ppm of air. H2O has an atomic weight of about 18. Atmospheric H2O has an IPCC set baseline UNIT value of radiative heat forcing (RHF ability to store heat) =1.00. All other RHF values for other GHG’s are some factor of 1.00 (H2O)

    6. CO2 is touted as the dangerous climate changer and human producers are the evil perps of global warming. Except CO2 only occurs at a rate of 400 ppm in the atmosphere even after 120 years of industrialization. It is true that the RHFV of CO2 = 2.01 (twice) that of H2O, a fact frequently touted by Anthroprogenoc GWAlamists. CO2 has an atomic weight of 44.

    7. Except that there are 100 x as many H2O molecules for every CO2 molecule in air. This is not however a fair comparison as one must factor in the ratio of weights. At 44, a single CO2 molecule = 244% of the weight of one H2O molecule. Therefore, an equal weight of water (2.44 molecules) would have a RHFV = 2.44 compared with an = weight of CO2 at 2.01 (21.4% greater RHFV for equivalent weights). So in a true scientific world of weight:=wt ratios, water is a more powerful GHG.

    8. By obvious inferance, if H2O= 40,000 ppm and CO2 = 400 ppm, based on Atomic Wt comparisons, water is roughly 41 times as common within the atmosphere as CO2. At equalized RHFV for weights, H20 also holds a total RHFV of 121.4% of CO2.

    9. Therefore The water in our atmosphere has approximately 50 (49.75) x the impact of CO2 in determining climate change.

    10. Now summarize this in relation to the fact that all of atmospheric climate at 289°k, GHG accounts for less than 3% of all other physical contributions to a temperature (281°K). It means that CO2 is 1/50th of the importance of all GHG’s.but all GHG’s account for only ~1/35th of the reason climate exists >|0K|. 1/50th of 1/35th = 1/1750th. Therefore, CO2 accounts for just 1/1750th of the reason climate exists at all and just 1/50th of the reason GHG’s heat the climate from 281°K to 289°K>|0K| (absolute zero).

    That is an actual scientific proof that the CO2 scare us a complete hoax.

    It is also the reason the language art of propoganda has shifted from global warming, to climate change. Those saying AGW x CO2 isn’t possible are being inaccurately called climate deniers. For starters the math just proved climate exists and no scientist or knowledgeable person of science would ever deny that climates change. The most obvious aspect of earth science is that the physical earth, surface, continents and climate are always changing.

  • Neb

    While at the same time we live on a flat Earth and our kids and everyone else is thought that we are on a globe. What is than a small lie of climate change in compararsing?

  • S. Yoder

    When is a climate change treaty not a climate change treaty? It is not a climate change treaty because it is not ratified by the Senate. The so-called climate change treaty is between Obama and the U.N., not the U.S. government and the U.N. President elect Donald Trump is not obligated to uphold it. Trump can tear up those pieces of paper as well as the non ratified Iran Nuclear Treaty. The U.S. government is not bound by either.

  • S. Yoder

    PS- The U.N. and the Democrat Party in the U.S. know climate change is a natural occurence. The know it is a hoax to just help finance a world government. That is their lying bottom line.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.